brust@starfire.UUCP (Steven K. Zoltan Brust) (02/10/86)
> > > > Saying that someone who can't write cannot criticize or > > review a piece of writing is akin to saying that someone can't > > fix a electrical appliance unless he knows how to invent one. > > > = Jerry Boyajian > > Uh, wait a minute. Knowing whether or not you *like* something is different > from having the capacity to criticize it. In general, I don't care for > modern art -- my tastes are pretty representational, not abstract. However, > after dutifully watching one of the PBS series on modern art ("The Shock of > the New"?), I understood more about it and had my opinion of *some* > works/artists changed, e.g., Kadinsky. I have had similar revisions of > liking some literature after having had a guided tour, e.g., Joyce, Faulkner; > on the otherhand I can't bring myself to like other work even after such an > experience, e.g. Smollett, Richardson, Trollope (yechhh!). > > It seems to me that to be a critic, you have to have some understanding of > what the author is intending, even if you don't sympathize. In the case of > you and your mother's paintings, you obviously have the understanding, > whether your education has been formal or by osmosis or both. Note that the > examples I used involve the issue of accessibility. Many people will not > like a work simply because it is not easily accessible (I sense that this is > at the crux of the Dhalgren argument, but since I haven't read it, I'm > staying out of that one). It's easy to say "I don't like a work" if its not > accessible, but I don't know that that constitutes fair criticism. (I also > think that accessibility is critical fair game, e.g., "Did the author need to > make the work as inaccessible as it is?" -- more fuel for the Dhalgren folk.) > > -- from the bewildered musings of Jim Brunet > > {ihnp4, decvax}!ima!jimb (most reliable) > > ihnp4!vortex!ism780!jimb > > > or jimb at ima/*cca-unix.arpa > ^ > this asterisk is necessary! Sorry to quote so much--it's largely because I don't yet quite have the feel of this editor. I'll fix this problem soon. As to criticism, I agree with you, Jim, that a critic ought to have some understanding (in fact, a thorough understanding) of what he is criticising, but I don't see why he needs to be able to write the sort of thing he is criticising. Certainly, a critic ought to be able to write, otherwise his criticism won't be readable. There are two points that come to mind most strongly as far as criticism is concerned. The first is something I've said before: The difference between a critic and a reviewer is that a critic has probably read the book. The second is that a critic ought to have quite clear in his mind the distinction between "I like this," and "this is good." There are good books I like, good books I don't like, bad books I like, and bad books I don't like. A critic who claims to like everything that's good and dislike everything that's bad is either lying to us, lying to himself, or lacking in judgement. In any case, he may be discounted. As for accessibility, as I've said before, I think it one of the most important aspects of a work of fiction, and there is nothing wrong with attacking a story on the grounds that it is inaccessible. I'll admit I share your prejudices about comic books, though. skzb
jimb@ism780 (02/21/86)
> As to criticism, I agree with you, Jim, that a critic ought to > have some understanding (in fact, a thorough understanding) of what > he is criticising, but I don't see why he needs to be able to write > the sort of thing he is criticising. Certainly, a critic ought to > be able to write, otherwise his criticism won't be readable. > = SKZB, responding to me Um, sorry, didn't mean to imply (if I did) that a critic should be able to write what he/she is criticising. I think people who have at least attempted to write have a better idea of author's intent, but I'm jaded for two reasons. Among my friends, those who are writers are invariably intelligent readers. Only some of my intelligent non-writer friends, however, are intelligent readers. Secondly, a lot of postings on the net have convinced me that there's a lot of sloppy or lazy reading going on. One effect seems to be a lack of discrimination -- so much is rated to be "good" or "great" or in the higher number of rating "stars". Phooey. I've also arrived at the conclusion that a large number of readers are superficial plot readers only. Hey, I've got nothing against plot; I detest some of the plotless literary wonders that have been perpetrated as "art." But someone whose reading doesn't allow them to get beyond plot is intellectually handicapped. Period. Long-winded way of saying, yes, an intelligent non-writer reader can make a good critic. > There are two points that come to mind most strongly as far as > criticism is concerned. The first is something I've said before: > The difference between a critic and a reviewer is that a critic > has probably read the book. The second is that a critic ought > to have quite clear in his mind the distinction between "I like > this," and "this is good." > There are good books I like, good books I don't like, bad books > I like, and bad books I don't like. A critic who claims to like > everything that's good and dislike everything that's bad is > either lying to us, lying to himself, or lacking in judgement. > In any case, he may be discounted. A-MEN, Brother Brust! Say it. Say it again. > As for accessibility, as I've said before, I think it one of > the most important aspects of a work of fiction, and there is > nothing wrong with attacking a story on the grounds that it is > inaccessible. I'll admit I share your prejudices about comic > books, though. I think accessibility is a two-edged sword. I try to make all of my work as accessible as I can and usually, whatever else its faults, it's crystal clear. But art is a matter of interpretation, and to reach some themes from some angles (and this, at least for me, is not a conscious process) requires leaving the paved road and leading the reader over some rocky terrain. Wolfe's BOTNS as a case in point. I don't think he could have written it to be more accessible and still have fulfilled his intent. The reader must make a decision whether to grapple with the work or not. I don't think the work can be fairly criticized by those who aren't willing to slog it out on ITS terms -- that's the reader's problem, not the writer's. Only if you slog it out, understanding the author's intentions, do I feel that it becomes fair game for not having succeeded. End note: Welcome back to the net, SKZB. -- from the musings of Jim Brunet ihnp4/ima/ism780B hao/ico/ism780B sdcsvax/sdcrdcf/ism780/ism780B "In any large scale endeavor that has worked to the benefit of mankind, there has been pain and sacrifice and loss. We stand now at one of the pivotal points in history. We can say "no" to the unknown mysteries of space, turn our backs, and announce our decline as a civilization. Or we can look at the stars, express our grief at the loss of CHALLENGER and its crew, and then honor their lives by saying, 'We shall continue.'"